Israeli right embracing one-state?

Israeli right embracing one-state?

By Ali Abunimah

There has been a strong revival in recent years of support among Palestinians for a one-state solution guaranteeing equal rights to Palestinians and Israeli Jews throughout historic Palestine.

One might expect that any support for a single state among Israeli Jews would come from the far left, and in fact this is where the most prominent Israeli Jewish champions of the idea are found, although in small numbers.

Recently, proposals to grant Israeli citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank, including the right to vote for the knesset, have emerged from a surprising direction: Right-wing stalwarts such as knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin, and former defence minister Moshe Arens, both from the Likud party of Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister.

Even more surprisingly, the idea has been pushed by prominent activists among Israel's West Bank settler movement, who were the subject of a must-read profile by Noam Sheizaf in Haaretz.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/07/201071913463759520.html

We already have a one-state solution at play, but one in which the Palestinians are the serfs.

They currently don't want Palestinians who were forced from (or left) Israel the right to return because they want to keep Israel's Jewish identify. I don't see how annexing the West Bank and Gaza would fix that problem unless Palestinians are given 3/5 of a vote or something.

If it's coming from the Israeli right, I'm very suspicious.

n/t.

Wouldn't want to be a woman if the idiots go for a one-state solution.

The article was called endgame. I think that was the article by Noam Sheizaf.

I was waiting for an active discussion - as it always is if it comes from the Arabs within the Knesset.....and heard crickets.....

The "extreme left" wants a unified pluralistic state with equal laws for all. They believe that two ethnically and religiously divided states sharing a tiny bit of land, where one side is fanatical and the other side is equally fanatical with better weapons, is a recipe for an even greater disaster

The "extreme right" wants an Israeli Jewish state that happens to have an Arab "serf" class. They believe that allowing the Arabs to imagine they would someday get a state rather than using absolute force to make them comply with the dominance of Israel is the cause of the problems today.

The basic premise - one single state - is the same. But beyond that, it's practically Confederate vs. Union viewpoints on what the nation should look like.

And at least part of why I disagree is because of the logic used by many who insist a one-state solution would be a "disaster"

See... the main argument is that "Israelis would never accept it." And granted, that's probably true. So, why is that? Well, it ties into another common claim, that anyone supporting a one-state solution is antisemitic because it would dilute or even end the "Jewish character" of Israel.

Swish that around in your brain for a moment.

Recently, the teabaggers made a claim that the NAACP is a racist organization. I've heard this claim many times from whites on the right. The basic idea is, the NAACP seeks the empowerment of African-Americans to a point where they are truly equal to whites in America. What the teabaggers are saying is that acknowledging that whites and non-whites are equal, is biased against whites, and that actually trying to bring that notion to reality is actively victimizing whites.

The argument against the one-state idea follows a similar logic, most times. There's the notion that Israelis should have the privilege of living in an exclusively Jewish state, and that it is bigoted, hateful even, to suggest they adopt a pluralistic society with equal rights for non-Jews. Who would support this notion for any other nation? You would not support a nation that forbade Jewish immigration and expelled its Jewish population in order to preserve the "Arab character" of the nation, would you? I wouldn't. Do you support American-style segregation, the notion that whites and blacks are very different and thus should have the "right" to live apart, where in practice, whites get to live where they want and the blacks have to clear out? I may not have a terribly high opinion of you, Shira, but I imagine you don't support that.

One state is a disaster only if you're ardently opposed to pluralistic societies with equal rights for all. Which in the case of Israel, you clearly are. "Unfortunately," that is going to be what happens if things follow at the current rate. Israel cannot with one hand, keep taking land out of the West Bank and Jerusalem, and with the other, keep treating the Palestinians as open-air prisoners. When "The west bank" is effectively just Hebron and Jericho, and the Arab population is living shoulder to shoulder, nose to nose with Israeli colonists, what options then? Israel will have a choice to make; end its segregation policy, end the ridiculous notion of ethnic "purity" and bring the Palestinians in as equal members of society... Or blood in the streets.

This is because time and time again, Israel has showed absolutely no interest in allowing a viable Palestinian state. I suppose that perhaps if Israel were to return to the 1967 borders, and offer the settlers the ultimatum of coming back to Israel or living as Palestinian citizens instead of Israelis, the one-state future would be averted. However Israel is not going to do this; it has too much invested in its colonization and dissolution of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to stop now.

I simply maintain that, given that's the case, Israel would be better off offering full and equal integration now rather than waiting until it has to be forced.

The March joint Israeli Palestinian poll focused on the main political outlines for a final status Palestinian- Israeli agreement. Those surveyed were asked whether they preferred a solution of two states for two peoples, a binational Palestinian-Israeli state, or a Palestinian-Israeli confederation.

The results were as follows:

* 71% among Israelis and 57% among Palestinians supported the “two-state solution,” namely the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside of Israel.
* Compared to the two-state solution, only 24% of the Israelis and 29% of the Palestinians supported the solution of a binational state, in which Israel is unified with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to establish one state in which Palestinians and Israelis would have equal rights.
* The third outline for a political settlement is a two states for two peoples solution, with joint political institutions which will lead eventually to a confederation of the two states. Only 30% of the Israelis and 26% among Palestinians supported this solution.

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2010/p35ejoint.html

Jews having to rely on others to host them or defend them hasn't worked out too well, has it? The rest of the world has historically failed to ensure safety for Jews.

How on earth do you expect the Jews of Israel to allow some binational one-state solution that theoretically could put Hamas in power? Hamas' charter could have been written by the 3rd Reich and Hamas has made it very clear that they mean what they say.

Here's the thing - I don't care whether one binational state leads to French anglo-saxons being the majority of Israelis, the point is as soon as that happens, Jews revert back to the same situation they were in from the fall of the 2nd Commonwealth in 70CE to the Roman empire until shortly after the Holocaust. Whether whites from Russia, Britain, Germany, or France are the majority - or whether it's Arabs, Blacks, or Asians from the far East makes little difference.

As it is, Jimmy Carter wrote about Israel...

"I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew."

Conditions can always be better for non-Jews but that's the case for any minority in every other imperfect democracy around the world.

Lastly, your claim about Israel wanting an exclusively Jewish state is baseless.

Sorry. I know it's all you have, but there's simply no logical or ethical basis to it. It's an appeal to emotion, the notion that the suffering of the Jewish people frees them from the standards of behavior and moral standards that all other people are held to. No one is entitled to an isolated state with an apartheid system. Not Afrikaaners, not Alabamians, not Iranians, not Serbs, not Hutus, not Palestinians, and not Israelis. It is a universal wrong, regardless of who is perpetrating it, or what their particular excuse is. Nobody has or deserves the entitlement to an ethnically exclusive society.

Now, moving past the (sorely needed) ethics lesson.

Like it or not, the fact of the situation lead very clearly to a one-state future. Israel cannot keep colonizing West bank land and ethnically purging East Jerusalem, and expect to still maintain a purely Jewish state. It simply cannot be done. It does not work. Israel is thus faced with three options.

1) Accept the trajectory they are on, and be proactive about it.

2) Accept UN resolution 242 in full

3) Extermination of the Palestinians

Now, despite my misgivings about you, I'm going to grant that you find option #3 as abhorrent as I do. So let's look at the other two.

#1: Israel and Palestine are heading towards a merger in the near future. it will not be an "official one" but it will be a practical one. And it will be a dangerous one; the Palestinians will effectively be a bunch of sub-citizens living in what is for all intents and purposes, Israel. I'm sure you can see the potential for bloodshed here. This situation is inevitable if Israel continues its colonization process (and it shows no signs of stopping it.) That being the case, it only makes sense for Israel to step up and try to make the best of it and try to lessen what could be an explosive situation. if Israel offers Israeli citizenship to Palestinians with full and equal protection under the law and at least visible attempts at economic equality, that fuse will be extinguished almost overnight. Things would be rocky at first, but frankly, it would be better than what could happen if a Third intifada erupted in this sort of situation.

You worry about Hamas being elected. Alright. Israel and the Palestinian Authority both have parliamentary systems. under a joiner, it's unlikely this will change at all. Hamas barely squeaked into legislative dominance in the 2006 PA elections. Now think about what Hamas' election results would look like with 4 million Israelis voting, too. Hamas would effectively go extinct as a political organization. And what if I'm wrong? Well, there was another crazy-ass racist and murderous political party that was set to win uncomfortably. Its name was Kach, and instead of winning, it actually ended up banned from the political process. A provision in an Israeli-Palestinian constitution forbidding these sort of political parties would work fine.

#2: Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967. Every Palestinian power group has said it would find adherence to this resolution a reason to lay down arms. Even Hamas has said this (whether they can be believed is another matter... but then Israel claimed to support the Oslo accords too, so that's a two-way street). If Israel reversed its current course, and began pulling out of the occupied territories, that would be the best step to two states living in good faith. Unfortunately I find this less probable than a one-state solution, simply because, as I said, Israel has invested too much blood, sweat, and time into turning the West Bank into East Israel. It would entail either removing or abandoning the colonies in the occupied territories; West bank colonists can become Palestinians, Golan colonists can become Syrians, and Shebaa colonists can become Lebanese, or they can pack their shit and move back to Israel. Or back to America or Poland or Russia or Kyrgyzstan or wherever they want to move if they don't want to be under Arab rule.

The point is, Israel cannot continue colonization and pretend there's going to be a two-state solution. It's idiotic to claim that this is remotely possible.

"Lastly, your claim about Israel wanting an exclusively Jewish state is baseless. "

I'd say to tell that to the people of Dier Yassin, but Irgun forces massacred the entire town because it had the misfortune of being within the Jewish part of the partition. Maybe you could ask the people of Givat Shaul Bet, the Jewish town built over the bones of those killed in that massacre.

Maybe you can see if there's a swimming pool.

Guess Obama needs an ethics lesson from you as well!

Maybe you can forward your post to him?

"I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew." (Jimmy Carter)

Israel won't be a genuine democracy until all those whose homes it has conquered are allowed to vote.

"I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew." (Jimmy Carter)

Carter has to say things like that in order to maintain leverage. It's possible he even believes it - he's far from infallible. But it's untrue in every particular - Israel is neither wonderful, genuinely democratic, nor remotely evenhanded in its treatment of Arabs and Jews.

Conditions can always be better for non-Jews but that's the case for any minority in every other imperfect democracy around the world.

them "folks" should just bow and shuffle and bes happy with whats they got right

tell that to Obama dear

Is Israel the only western style democracy which has minorities who are discriminated against?

Name one where that never happens, okay?

It seemed to me that it indicated they hoped to keep the West Bank (and the settlements) and lose Gaza. I thought the intent was obvious. It's not a new idea at all, if you want to keep the West Bank, you are going to have to make the residents citizens, somehow ...

And you are correct - the idea is not new.

I also believe that if the situation continues to evolve as it is, with settler encroachment, Palistinian weak leadership, and intransigence of both sides - it is what will occur. I would rather see open discussion of a scenario, instead of a knee jerk rejection.

I don't know if there is any connection, but it is not hard to find Israeli hardliners who are quick to claim Obama's foreign policy doctrine is a failure...and yet we have settlers and senior members of the Likud who are talking about giving Palistinians full citizenship....wow....

Alternatively - this sort of discussion may give more impetus to both the palistinians and the Israeli's to get a deal done in regards to two state...not as a threat, but as a real possibility that no one seems to want.

:hi:

why would it not work in Israel?

At least in Israel/Gaza/West Bank many are Semites just of different religious beliefs. South Africa has two different races and they seem to share power reasonably. Why can't the Semites of the Middle East and in Israel share power? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semite

...cannot be expected to ensure basic human rights for its citizens.

Read the Hamas charter sometime. It could have been written by the 3rd Reich 70 years ago. Hamas has made it very clear they mean what they say.

And you still think one-state could work?